The Journal of rheumatology · 2017
A Systematic Review of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cooper Matthew, Rouhi Azin, Barber Claire E H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and quality appraisal of quality measures for inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 23, 2016, using Medical Subject Headings terms for inflammatory arthritis and quality measures. A "grey literature" search of international arthritis organizations and quality measure libraries was also conducted. Two reviewers independently considered the papers for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A modified guideline appraisal tool (AGREE II) was used to appraise the measure development process, which determined final inclusion. Measures were abstracted in duplicate and categorized into themes, measure type, and domains of quality.
RESULTS: Thirteen measurement sets were included from 4 countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands) and 1 European consortium. They included 10 sets on RA and 1 each for PsA, inflammatory arthritis, and JIA. There were 161 unique individual measures (136 process, 20 structure, and 5 outcome). Major themes included assessment, medications, and comorbidities. Measure development methods were varied, including RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology, prioritization exercises, or other modified-Delphi methods. Inclusion of patients occurred in 77% of development groups. Discussion of barriers to measurement was infrequent.
CONCLUSION: Inflammatory arthritis quality measures cover a diversity of themes encompassing process, structure, and outcomes of care across the 6 domains of quality. However, between organizations, measure development is not standardized. Local assessment of measurement feasibility before use outside the original development context is recommended.
METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 23, 2016, using Medical Subject Headings terms for inflammatory arthritis and quality measures. A "grey literature" search of international arthritis organizations and quality measure libraries was also conducted. Two reviewers independently considered the papers for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A modified guideline appraisal tool (AGREE II) was used to appraise the measure development process, which determined final inclusion. Measures were abstracted in duplicate and categorized into themes, measure type, and domains of quality.
RESULTS: Thirteen measurement sets were included from 4 countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands) and 1 European consortium. They included 10 sets on RA and 1 each for PsA, inflammatory arthritis, and JIA. There were 161 unique individual measures (136 process, 20 structure, and 5 outcome). Major themes included assessment, medications, and comorbidities. Measure development methods were varied, including RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology, prioritization exercises, or other modified-Delphi methods. Inclusion of patients occurred in 77% of development groups. Discussion of barriers to measurement was infrequent.
CONCLUSION: Inflammatory arthritis quality measures cover a diversity of themes encompassing process, structure, and outcomes of care across the 6 domains of quality. However, between organizations, measure development is not standardized. Local assessment of measurement feasibility before use outside the original development context is recommended.